Murphy v Times Newspapers Ltd

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeKeane, J.,O'Flaherty J.,BARRON J.
Judgment Date17 January 2000
Neutral Citation[2000] IESC 39
CourtSupreme Court
Docket Number(251/97),280/98,[S.C. No. 280 of 1998]
Date17 January 2000
MURPHY v. TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD & ORS

BETWEEN

PATRICK MURPHY
Plaintiff/Appellant

AND

TIMES NEWSPAPERS LIMITED, ANDREW NEIL, ANDREW HOGG,BARRIE PENROSE, CHRIS RYDER & ROWENA WEBSTER
Defendants/Respondents

[2000] IESC 39

280/98

THE SUPREME COURT

Synopsis

Defamation

Defamation; plaintiff instituted proceedings against defendants for defamation resulting from publication of a newspaper article; jury in separate proceedings taken by another plaintiff arising out of the same article found that the words complained of were true in substance and in fact in respect of that plaintiff and his claim was dismissed; defendants in present proceedings pleaded partial justification; plaintiff brought a motion seeking an order that the plea of partial justification be struck out; application was dismissed in the High Court; plaintiff appealing against the ruling on the basis that since the jury in the other proceedings found that the words complained of by the plaintiff in that action were true in substance and in fact in respect of that plaintiff, the defendants should not be allowed to maintain in the present proceedings that it was also true in substance and in fact concerning the plaintiff; whether if two plaintiffs in successive actions could satisfy the jury that an article clearly written about one person was capable of being understood and was understood to refer to each of the plaintiffs the defendant was entitled to rely on whatever defences were open to him at law including a defence in the present proceedings that although the defendant never intended the words to refer to the plaintiff in the proceedings they were nonetheless true concerning him; whether the defendants were required to plead matters of law which were within the knowledge of the plaintiff's legal advisers.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

Murphy v. Times Newspapers Limited - Supreme Court: Denham J., Barrington J., Keane J., Murphy J., Barron J. - 17/01/2000 - [2000] 1 IR 522 - [2000] 2 ILRM 491

The plaintiff had sued the defendants on the basis that an article appearing in the Sunday Times had referred to him as one of the organisers behind an IRA bombing campaign. The plaintiff had been successful in the High Court and had been awarded £15,000 damages. On appeal the Supreme Court ordered that the case be retried. The plaintiff moved an application to have the defence of partial justification struck out. The application was dismissed and the plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal holding that the defendants were entitled to rely on whatever defences were available to them.

Citations:

MURPHY V TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD 1996 1 IR 169

MCCAULEY V MCDERMOT 1997 2 ILRM 486

DEFAMATION ACT 1961 S22

E HULTON & CO V JONES 1910 AC 20

CASSIDY V DAILY MIRROR NEWSPAPERS LTD 1929 2 KB 331

NEWSTEAD V LONDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD 1940 1 KB 377

DEFAMATION ACT 1961 S21

CLARKE V TAYLOR 1836 2 BING NC 654

RSC O.19(3)

1

17th day of January, 2000,by Keane, J.

Keane, J.
2

On the 30th June 1985, an article appeared in The Sunday Times (which ispublished by the first named defendants) under the title "Portraitof a check-in terrorist". Underneath that heading, there was thefollowing caption:-

"Last week the police announced that they had discovered anIRA plan to plant bombs in 12 seaside resorts. They detained over ascore of people and appeared to have destroyed one of the ProvisionalIRA's active service units, but the triumph has a dark side; there aremore of these units. How are they created and how are they destroyed? Areport by Andrew Hogg, Barrie Penrose and Chris Ryder."

3

The article which followed contained this paragraph:-

"In Ireland itself the planning of mainland campaigns issurrounded now by a more tightly knit security. The IRA's Army Councillast February appointed a farmer in the Republic called"Slab" Murphy (which is not his real name), to be itsoperation commander for the whole of Northern Ireland. He has noconvictions for terrorist activities and this, plus the fact that he ison the other side of the border, makes him a security headache, hard tocure. Murphy is likely to have had to sanction certain key provisionalstravelling to Britain to take part in this summer's planned bombingcampaign. It would have been a task made easier to keep secret by thefact that his farm is close to the small town of Dundalk where IRA menon the run can gain sanctuary and "safehouses"."

4

Following the publication of the article, one Thomas Murphy institutedproceedings in the High Court against the defendants for defamationclaiming that these words referred to, and were understood to refer to,him. In the statement of claim, it was pleaded that:-

"The said words in their natural and ordinary meaning andunder the titles and in the context of the aforesaid meant and wereunderstood to mean that:-"

(a) the Plaintiff was a prominent figure in the Provisional IRA,an unlawful organisation and an organisation associated in the publicmind with unlawful violence, brutality and murder;

(b) that the Plaintiff planned murder and the bombing ofproperty;

(c) in particular, that the Plaintiff was prepared to sanction,plan and countenance the bombing of twelve seaside resorts inBritain.

(d) that the Plaintiff sought, planned, sanctioned and aimed tocause indiscriminate slaughter at twelve seaside resorts inBritain."

5

The statement of claim went on to say that, as a result, the plaintiffhad been injured in his credit and reputation and had been brought intopublic scandal, odium and contempt and that his life had beenendangered.

6

The plaintiff, who is a brother of Thomas Murphy, also instituted theseproceedings, in which he makes a precisely similar claim, i.e. that thewords complained of referred to and were understood to refer to him andmeant and were understood to mean what I have already set out at (a) to(d) above. It is accepted on behalf of the defendants that thedescription of "Slab Murphy" is applied by people living inthe area to both Thomas Murphy and the plaintiff.

7

The defendants pleaded partial justification in both proceedings,claiming that the words complained of were true in so far as theyasserted that each plaintiff was a member of the IRA. The defendantsalso pleaded, in mitigation of damages, that each plaintiff was, and wasknown to be, at all material times an active supporter of the IRA.

8

Both actions were heard before Lynch J and a jury in the High Court. Theclaim of Thomas Murphy failed, but that of the present plaintiff wassuccessful and he was awarded damages in the sum of £15,000. Onappeal, this court ordered that both actions be retried (Murphy v. Times Newspapers Limited & Ors. [1996] 1 IR169). An application by the plaintiffs for separate trials of theiractions having been granted by the High Court on the 3rd June 1997 andthat order having been upheld by this court on the 21st October 1997,the High Court (McGuinness J) on the 3rd April 1998 made an orderdirecting that Thomas Murphy's action be heard first and furtherdirecting that the defendants adduce their evidence of justificationafter the plaintiff had adduced evidence of publication andidentification.

9

The action of Thomas Murphy was heard before McGuinness J and a jury inMay 1998. As a result of the evidence adduced in that hearing, thedefendants conceded that Thomas Murphy had established that the wordscomplained of had been understood by people to refer to him. In theissue paper the jury were asked whether the words complained of meantand were understood to mean that:-

10

a "(a) Thomas Murphy was a prominent figure in theProvisional IRA, an unlawful organisation and an organisation associatedin the public mind with unlawful violence, brutality andmurder;

11

(b) Thomas Murphy planned murder and the bombing ofproperty."

12

Both questions were answered in the affirmative by the jury. They thenwent on to find, however, in their answers to the next two questions onthe issue paper that the defendants had proved that the words complainedof were true in substance and in fact. The claim of Thomas Murphy was,accordingly, dismissed.

13

The plea of justification in the defence delivered in the presentproceedings was as follows:-

"If the description Slab Murphy is applied to the Plaintiff,which is denied, the words complained of are true in substance and infact, in so far as they assert that the Plaintiff was a prominent memberof the Provisional IRA.""

14

Further and better particulars had been sought of this plea on behalf ofthe plaintiff. The replies which were furnished on behalf of thedefendants on a number of occasions were relatively lengthy and need notbe set out in full. For the purpose of this judgment, they can besummarised as follows:-

15

(1) the plaintiff attended a Provisional IRA Social/Fund RaisingEvent in late 1983, attendance at which was strictly confined to activemembers and active supporters of the organisation;

16

(2) the plaintiff was present in late 1983 at a known ProvisionalIRA "safe house" in which two members of the Provisional IRAwere also present;

17

(3) the plaintiff was involved in a profitable smuggling business,including the smuggling of fuel in the border area of the Republic ofIreland and Northern Ireland, with the acquiescence, knowledge orsupport of the Provisional IRA;

18

(4) the plaintiff associated with convicted terrorists and inparticular provided a "safe housersquo; to one Brendan Byrne;

19

(5) an arms bunker was found on or adjacent to the plaintiffs landon the 23rd April 1998;

20

(6) the plaintiff told a customs officer on the 7th April 1999 thata car was being called to take him to Crossmaglen to be killed;

21

(7) the plaintiff facilitated the escape of an IRA man through hisproperty on the 19th May 1984 following an incident during which two IRAmembers opened fire on a British Army patrol, and one of them, FrankMcKenna, was shot and wounded and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Alan Bradley v Independent Star Newspapers Ltd and Wayne Bradley v Independent Star Newspapers Ltd
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 Junio 2011
    ...the application of an objective standard and relied on the decision of this Court in Murphy v Times Newspapers Limited and Others [2000] I.R. 522. 212 38. The learned trial judge declined to admit the second article in evidence. She considered that Lord Denning had gone further than the law......
  • McDonagh v Sunday Newspapers Ltd
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 27 Julio 2017
    ...... ) or applications made under the slip rule to the procedure of speaking to the minutes of the order which produced the substantial ruling in Murphy v. AG [1982] I.R. 241 . See more generally the recent decision of this Court in Nash v. DPP [2017] I.E.S.C. 51 . The decision on the grant of ...In the distant past, if a newspaper said of an individual that he had been convicted a number of times for dishonesty, but, on being sued, found that he had, in fact, only been convicted twice, the newspaper could not then entirely justify, because it ......
  • Nolan v Laurence Lounge t/a Grace's Pub
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 8 Junio 2018
    ...stated concern has been established on the evidence. Even if it had been, as Keane J. observed in Murphy v. Times Newspapers Limited [2000] 1 I.R. 522 at p. 529:- 'It has for long been the law that the intention of the publisher of the statement is irrelevant in considering whether it is de......
1 books & journal articles
  • Counter Terrorism Financing
    • United Kingdom
    • New Journal of European Criminal Law No. 6-3, September 2015
    • 1 Septiembre 2015
    ...objectives, which re ect real 137 Https://www.cps.gov.uk /publications/prosecution /ctd_2011.html.138 See Murphy v Times Newspa pers [2000] 1 IR 522.139 See  omas Murphy v Ireland [2014] IESC 19.140 J. Johnston ( e Independen t, 25November 2004, p 2 8); Re Warnock [2005] NIQB 16; J. Gra......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT